Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
and
Crl.MP.(MD)Nos.1231 1232 of 2017
1.Rangasamy
2.Kumar
3.Nagarajan
4.Ravi Kumar
5.Muruganandam
6.Murugesan
7.Jayakodi : Petitioners
Vs.
1.State through
The Inspector of Police,
Kantharvakottai Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
2.T.Gurusamy : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records in PRC.No.79 of 2016
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai
and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Standing Counsel for the State
for R.1
Mr.A.Balakrishnan,
Legal Aid Counsel
for R.2
*****
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused in Cr.No.33 of 2016 on
the file of the Kantharvakottai Police Station, Pudukottai,
have filed this application as against the final report,
which was filed by the first respondent police and pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, in
PRC.No.79 of 2016. The final report was filed for the
offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section
3(1) of TNPPDL Act, that on 09.02.2016, the petitioners
went to the house of the defacto complainant and damaged
certain articles and also used abusive words against the
defacto complainant.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 09.02.2016 at
about 04.30 pm, they received a call that the first
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
petitioner’s sister, namely, Selvarani, is suffering from
ill health and therefore, the petitioners went to the house
of the first petitioner’s sister, wherein, they found the
said Selvarani lying dead. Her husband and other family
members absconded from the house. The mother of the first
petitioner went to the first respondent police station and
lodged a complaint as against her son-in-law and others for
dowry harassment and dowry death. The same has been
registered in Cr.No.32 of 2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and
an enquiry by the Sub Collector was also ordered. As a
counter blast, this complaint has been foisted.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
on 09.02.2016, the first petitioner’s sister was killed by
the defacto complainant and his family members. For having
lodged a complaint as against the defacto complainant and
his family members, this complaint has been foisted as if
the petitioners have abused and also caused damage to
certain articles. The first respondent police has also
filed the final report in a mechanical manner without
ascertaining the truth.
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted
that the first petitioner’s sister was married to the son
of the defacto complainant and they constructed a house and
performed a house warming ceremony on 10.02.2016. The
brother-in-law of the first petitioner, Deenathayalan, has
not extended any invitation to the first petitioner and
therefore, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife
/ the first petitioner’s sister. The first petitioner’s
sister has committed suicide, by hanging, in her
matrimonial house.
5. On knowing about this incident, the petitioners went
to the defacto complainant’s house and ransacked the house.
Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case
in Cr.No.33 of 2016 was registered by the first respondent
police as against the petitioners. After concluding the
investigation, final report has been filed in PRC.No.79 of
2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai and
was also committed to the Principal District Court,
Pudukottai, in S.C.No.108 of 2018. He further submitted
that the trial has already commenced and five witnesses
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
were examined on 07.01.2020 and summons were issued for
witnesses 6 to 11 and the trial was adjourned to 19.07.2021.
6. Insofar as the complaint made by the first
petitioner’s mother, learned Standing Counsel submitted
that a case was registered in Cr.No.32 of 2016 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C and later altered to Sections 498A
304(b) IPC, as against the defacto complainant. In the said
complaint, the Sub Collector has conducted an enquiry and
reported that there was no dowry harassment. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police has conducted the investigation in
that case and closed the same as mistake of facts.
7. No doubt, this is an unfortunate incident. It
appears that on account of the sudden demise of the first
petitioner’s sister, the petitioners have caused certain
damage to the defacto complainant’s family. On the
complaint of the defacto complainant, a case has been
registered. The grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be
appreciated for quashing the proceedings pending against
them. Moreover, the learned Standing Counsel for the State
submitted that the trial has already commenced and five
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
witnesses were examined by the trial Court and summons have
been issued to the remaining witnesses.
8. In such view of the matter, this criminal original
petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners
to raise all the grounds, that are raised herein, before
the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions stand closed.
Index : Yes / No 09.07.2021
gk
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Pudukottai.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kantharvakottai Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.OP(MD)No.1488 of 2017
09.07.2021
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/